Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4914772" data-attributes="member: 94">It depends entirely on whether or not you believe that the AP mechanic that is integrated into the Rest mechanic is a worthwhile method of limiting spellcaster power. You seem to fall on the side of "heavy handed and unnecessary" in which case, you probably don't need the Rest mechanic, either.I suspect that if you're not on board for limiting the spellcasters in this way, you're not going to be on board the Rest mechanic either.You're looking at this entirely from the side of the monsters recovering from the PCs spells. This is very easily hand-waved: don't let the monsters rest.But your "Fair is fair," suggestion has mechanical problems. I think you want to keep the refreshing of the caster's spell slots tied to the caster's rests, and not have to keep track of where all his targets are and whether they are resting or not. That's... awkward.To limit spellcasters. Area of effect spells are highly asymmetric attack forms (from a melee-centric perspective) and extremely valuable in the economy of actions; fighters have nothing comparable.It seems to me that your game would be best served by removing the AP costs for spells, removing rote/restricted/ritual designations entirely, and leaving the Rest mechanic-- if you want it-- with just class features and hit points. Or maybe even just hit points. That's a very easy mechanic to deal with: 50% for free, another 50% for 1 AP.Everything is GM discretion. That's mentioned on the first page. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" />We have our recommendations and hopefully provide enough context for folks to make informed changes.</blockquote>

Verification